US Navy Standard Missile Family

Data is all from chinese paper.

One is SM-2 Block4A study (see the attached paper and picture).

The other seems to come from a sm-3 paper study.

MK-72

Gross mass: 750kg
Propellant mass: 507kg
Thrust: 174KN
Engine working time: 9s
Specific impulse: 3089m/s

MK-104

Gross mass: 550kg
Propellant mass: 442 kg
Thrust: 22KN
Engine working time: 44s
Specific impulse: 2294m/s

MK-136

Gross mass:100kg
Propellant mass: 70kg
Thrust: 7kN
Engine working time: 20s (10+10)
Specific impulse: -


 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240803-015041.png
    Screenshot_20240803-015041.png
    238.5 KB · Views: 25
  • IWMECS20069 (3).pdf
    1.4 MB · Views: 19
Anybody know what the little window is there just aft of the nose? (Know, not just speculation. I can do that just fine.) I hadn't heard SM-6 had a secondary IR sensor.


7sostnnqevhd1.jpg


Just looking at it, I'd have said it was an SM-2 Block IV like the one below:

SM-2-Block-IV-launch.jpg
 
sferrin said:
Anybody know what the little window is there just aft of the nose?
Click to expand...
Looks like the Datalink / communication antenna of the guidance system given that its on SM-2MR's too.
sferrin said:
(Know, not just speculation. I can do that just fine.)
Click to expand...
Don't know if its that specific Part but its highly likely.
I hadn't heard SM-6 had a secondary IR sensor.
Me neither nor does it look like it is one. We do have pictures which show that round about at that position the Datalink antenna is. 1000048022.jpg 1000048018.png 1000048017.jpg
sferrin said:
View attachment 736480
Just looking at it, I'd have said it was an SM-2 Block IV like the one below:
View attachment 736481
Click to expand...
1000048019.jpg
1000048016.jpg
 
Very good discussion. I am from China and have always been interested in the Standard ER missile, but some parameters are not reported authoritatively or are doubtful. For example, many sources say the maximum speed is Mach 3-3.5. After reading your discussion, it reaches Mach 6, which is similar to my estimate using the formula.
 
I have also seen many of the Chinese papers cited above that contradict each other. This is probably because they used these questionable data.
 
I also have great doubts about the warhead weight in most of the information. The initial information showed that the warhead weight of the early model was about 60kg, but now most of the information says it is 115~125kg. Is it that the number in the model is regarded as the weight? Do you have any authoritative information? Thanks ~
 
yujiexia said:
I mean sm2er/sm6, sm3 has obviously higher speed.
Click to expand...

In regards to the latest block SM-2s there's at least one variant that isn't fitted with the Mk-72 launch-booster (Probably for smaller warships that can't fit the full booster-stack) so these naturally would have a lower burnout speed and hence a shorter range.
 
NMaude said:
In regards to the latest block SM-2s there's at least one variant that isn't fitted with the Mk-72 launch-booster (Probably for smaller warships that can't fit the full booster-stack) so these naturally would have a lower burnout speed and hence a shorter range.
Click to expand...
That's the RIM-66K/L/M, the SM2 Block III and IIIA series. Any ships still running Terrier NTU can use the -K, Aegis ships get the -L. SM2 Block IIIB is the RIM-66M.

The Active Standard, SM2 Block IIIC, doesn't seem to have an official number yet, even though it's in active service (while apparently still under development?). It's officially the seeker from the SM6 stuck onto a RIM-66 with some other upgrades, so it may keep the RIM-66 series numbers. But with the seeker, new fins, and thrust vectoring rocket, it may get a new number. If it does get a new number, it seems that the next available MDS number is RIM-188. If the USN bothers to follow the series instead of pulling a number out of their arse.

The SM6 is more than just an enlarged AMRAAM seeker stuck onto an SM2ER, though; it also has a new warhead and a new power-and-telemetry section. So I'm not sure if there are enough changes for the Active Standard to get a new number.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom